Why presidentialism is considered right-wing (but in the past it was supported by the left) – Corriere.it

Is presidentialism right-wing? The suggestion comes from the atavistic aspiration to the “strong man” by the right, who have always pushed to assign more powers to the President of the Republic to have him elected directly by the citizens, with the aim of giving him greater legitimacy and a more autonomous and prevailing power over Parliament and over the executive itself.

The issue arises because the Meloni government – in continuity with its roots, from the MSI to An – has decided to speed up the reform, convening the opposition for today.
In 1983, interviewed by Enzo Biagi, it was Giorgio Almirante who launched the idea of ​​a “modern presidential republic”, in which “the president of the republic is not a servant of the party power”. It is therefore not irrelevant that the government furthest to the right in the history of the Republic is now asking for a change, which on several occasions – see the recent April 25 – has been accused by the opposition of fascist resurgences. Francesco Boccia, Elly Schlein’s right-hand man during the primary campaign, and now leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, was quite tranchant a few months ago, putting the two facts in parallel: «Our beautiful Constitution is anti-fascist and the we will also defend against presidentialism, which would never have been taken into consideration by our founding fathers”.

At least an incautious statement, for two reasons. The first is the improper identification of presidentialism as a form of government that would threaten the anti-fascism of the Constitution. In what sense? There are plenty of democracies that adopt it, in very different forms, from the United States to France, and no one dreams of accusing them of fascism. Secondly, presidentialism was considered by at least a couple of the founding fathers. And what fathers: Leo Valiani and Piero Calamandrei, master of law as well as one of the founders of the Action Party, both with solid anti-fascist credentials. The reason is rather intuitive: to give the green light to fascism and Nazism were certainly the violence of the squads and a thousand other factors but also the weakness of the institutions and governments, from the Italian one of Luigi Facta, to the disastrous Weimar Republic.

Digging into recent history, we discover that the French presidential or semi-presidential temptation has infected exponents who are not right-wing at all. The white Christian Democrat partisan Bartolo Ciccardini, in 1969, proposed it with the Europa70 group. Then it was the turn of Giuliano Amato and Bettino Craxi, who chased him for a long time (at least since 1979, the year he launched him on Avanti), before being overwhelmed by Mani Pulite (and after being painted as a little Duce in high boots, by Forattini). But in more recent times, even politicians of the left, or nearly so, still in circulation have expressed themselves in favor of presidentialism. Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist left 5 Stars, wanted “system change”, he envied the “heads of state and government who remain in office for decades” (perhaps thinking of himself) and in June 2021, now out of the Palazzo Chigi, told Di Martedì: «Should I propose presidentialism? Don’t make me anticipate it.” Then he didn’t offer it. But Conte, as is known, has not made linearity his political weapon. He’s not the only one, and coherence in politics isn’t always a virtue.

In June 1997 the Bicameral Commission for Reforms, chaired by Massimo D’Alema, approved a basic text which provided for the election of the President of the Republic by universal and direct suffrage.
Then the “tart pact” was disavowed by Silvio Berlusconi. Romano Prodi, noble father of the left, now says he is fiercely hostile to the reform: “I am a total anti-presidentialist”. But in the past, in 2013, he argued for a strong and stable government. As? “There is no doubt – he said – that the most suitable system to obtain this objective is the double shift in the French style, including semi-presidentialism”. In his wake, the olive lover and then minister Arturo Parisi convincedly argued, against fragmentation and to maintain bipolarity, the need to fully adopt the French model. At that moment it seemed that the left, amidst a thousand resistances and ambiguities, flattered by the double shift, wanted to finally move in the direction of French-style semi-presidentialism. But even then Parisi was sceptical: “I don’t feel any passion, any inspiration, any real drive behind all the statements of principle that preach the need to reform and give a jolt to the plastered institutional system”. In the same year, in the book «And if we tomorrow. Italy and the left I would like», Walter Veltroni also espoused the semi-presidential suggestion.

In short, the equation presidentialism equals right is wrong. On the left, the theme has often been ridden, albeit among a thousand distinctions. Until Matteo Renzi arrived, presidentialist and in favor of the model of the “mayor of Italy”, who made everyone agree. Against him.

But why is the left now against it?
For a matter of political culture and interests: a direct election would take away space from parties and apparatuses. There is also the fear that the people, left free to choose without filters, will end up rewarding solutions that are dangerous for democracy. Fear, it must be said, not always unfounded: representative systems also serve this purpose, to mediate the choices of the “gut” of the people, often understandably far from any form of caution and institutional wisdom (naturally the opposite objection is also valid, i.e. that often parties are anything but «wise»).

Then there is the fear of a radical change of order, which would blow up counter-powers and balances and irreversibly shift the weight of the Republic to the right. And here who proposes the reform also counts, who has the ball in hand, that is the right: even thinking of a mediation, the current majority has a power of direction and a driving force that the Democratic Party and the 5 Stars do not have. The fear is that the reform is unbalanced, without the necessary democratic counterweights. As Luciano Violante explained, there is not only the direct election of the head of state in presidentialism: «Without a clear distinction of powers, this form of government lends itself to forms of authoritarianism incompatible with our democratic tradition. It is therefore necessary to redefine relations with the Chamber and Senate, with the Regions, with the judiciary and with the Constitutional Court”.

It is no coincidence that an uproar occurred when Silvio Berlusconi said during the electoral campaign that in the event of a reform, President Mattarella would have to resign. A truism but also an institutional misgrammation, which alarmed all the opposition, considering the role of guarantee played by the head of state. If Francesco Cossiga had been in Mattarella’s place, it must be said, the reactions would certainly have been different.

Finally, it is unfortunately not true that institutional systems are valid and can function well in absolute terms, regardless of the political framework and the social context. The willingness of each new majority to write a tailor-made electoral law is often contested, with good reason. And this is certainly a cunning and a distortion. But it is also true that the tools are never neutral and behave differently depending on the agents in the field. To return to Violante, presidentialism can guarantee stability and function, but only if there is mutual legitimacy. And today, clearly, there is none in Italy.

The feeling is that once again nothing will be done about it. The palingenesis is postponed. The solution to the ills of the Republic will be sought elsewhere. Because then presidentialism, like other “major reforms”, has often been used by the majority as an alibi to distract from other failures, and instrumentally rejected by the opposition, who with their no hope to undermine the unity and strength of governments. Some premiers, see Matteo Renzi, have also fallen on the field, struck down by the referendum.

But more easily the proposals in the field are destined to shatter by themselves, to slip in ambiguous directions, to propose similar or alternative formulas, to derail the public debate on complex reasoning, on chancellorships, premierships, constructive mistrust. Unless Meloni really wants to go to the test of strength and decides to rely on the ordeal of the referendum. In that case, he will risk his political career. But the opposition will also risk everything if they do not try in some way to make politics and mediation prevail.

The Political Diary newsletter

If you want to stay updated on political news, subscribe to the newsletter “Political Diary”. It is dedicated to Corriere della Sera subscribers and arrives twice a week at 6pm. Just click here.